What happened to pro-choice?

Joining a union should be a voluntary decision

Democrats are pro-choice, all right – but only when it comes to abortion.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer correctly notes that when it comes to where to send your children for their education, or whether to join or pay dues to unions, they’re definitely not pro-choice.

This odd anti-freedom position is on full and ugly display in Michigan, where union mobs have destroyed property and assaulted people in bitter opposition to some pro-freedom legislation in that state.

A Democratic lawmaker there predicted “there will be blood” over the law. President Barack Obama interrupted fiscal cliff negotiations to go and campaign against the state law. And Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa predicted a “civil war” over the matter.

Don’t be fooled by the ridiculous over-the-top rhetoric or the climate of hatred being created by union supporters. Know the facts.

The commonsense legislation in question, now signed by the governor, essentially does two things: 1) it gives workers the right to refuse to join a union and 2) ends a requirement that non-union workers pay union dues.

That’s it. That’s what the “civil war” is about.

As another observer noted, “The law imposes no limitation on unions’ ability to organize, to engage in collective bargaining, or to strike. It merely forbids them to take money out of the pockets of workers who do not wish to join them.”

Of course, a reasonable person doesn’t need financial incentives to see the wisdom in those two changes. But there can be no doubt that they will increase the likelihood of businesses locating in Michigan. That’s been the experience in Indiana and a growing number of other so-called “right to work” states.

Statistics also show that unemployment is lower in such states – 6.9 percent vs. 8.7 percent.

But the most important facet of this battle is that it’s about freedom.

And union power.

Union bosses know that if workers have a choice of whether to join or pay dues, they may not. They don’t want workers to have that freedom. They even want the government to sanction the taking of non-union workers’ dues.

What other organization in this country has the right to take your money whether you join it or not?

It’s too bad the news networks and even the president of the United States are whipping up this frenzy. They have succeeded in creating a climate of fear and loathing that has resulted in the destruction of property and the assault of a Fox News contributor, who was punched in the face by a union thug.

A few years ago, when they wrongly jumped to the conclusion that a conservative was to blame for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, Democrats on up to the president appealed for civility and a change in the public dialogue. Now look at them. Shameful.

In the glory days of the country’s union movement, organizers were fighting for worker freedom and working conditions. It was a noble movement. Today, the state and federal governments oversee most aspects of worker safety and conditions. And union officials are fighting against worker freedoms.

And they’re doing it violently, and with rhetoric that incites hatred and violence.

If unions are the answer, workers will join them and happily pay dues. But they should not be forced to, in either case.

Here’s the nut of it, though: As Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus said this week, “unions aren’t going to survive when people have a choice ...”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

I know many Democrats that are pro-life. Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean they are pro-choice. I'm a Democrat and I'm pro-life. You editors have small narrow minds when it comes to politics.

This appears to be very presumtuous assumption of the ACES. Some Democrats don't believe a mother has a choice or the best interest of their childrden, whether it be abortion, adoption, etc. How close-minded.

The GOP is dying. Demographics in this country will kill them in a couple of decades. They have 3 methods of hanging on:
1. Voter suppression. We saw the beginnings this year, with voter ID laws (Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania GOP House majority leader admitted they passed it so Romney would win).
2. The Citizens United case. Money is speech and corporations are people. Corporations (and unions) can spend unlimited, often anonymous cash. Of course the corporations have more money than the unions so they have the advantage but that's not enough so they:
3. Kill the unions. Abolish the only source average people have to compete against massive monied corporations.

Gerrymandering was the only thing that kept the GOP control in the House this year. In Ga., Obama received 45% of the vote yet Democrats only have 35% of the Representatives in Congress (not counting the 2 Senators). In SC, Obama received 44% of the vote yet Democrats have only 14% of the Representatives. In Pennsylvania, Obama won 52% of the vote yet Democrats only have 28% of the Representatives. Ohio, Obama won 51% of the vote yet Democrats only have 25% of the Representatives.

It's laughable that the AC gripes about union power and money when just 3 people (the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson) pledged half a billion dollars to GOP causes to defeat Obama this last election. The 2 largest unions to donate to Obama SEIU and AFSCME donated $185 million. Of course the 2 unions have a total of 2.6 million members. So you have a whopping 71 cents per person from the unions vs $166,666,666.6666667 from Charles, David, and Sheldon. Gee, I wonder which side has more clout?

Of course the main thing the AC, the talking head on Faux, and all of the anti-union right wingers never mention is: If you don't want your union dues used for political purposes, by law, you are entitled to a refund of all dues that aren't used for collective bargaining. In other words, if you don't like the candidate the union endorses, you get your money back. I wonder why they never bring that up?

Every union hall in this country has a large photo of The Leader. The UAW pension fund that would have gone bankrupt was funded by the Democrats, largely using the tax money of non-union individuals. So let’s take the Democratic Party-union goal to fruition. Every worker in the country in a union, obeying union bosses, striking when told and voting for The Leader and his Democratic Party followers.

The race to the bottom in wages. If we'd just work for 14 cents an hour, they wouldn't ship jobs to China and we'll all keep our jobs. Couldn't afford housing or food, but could keep our job. Maybe they can put up barracks surrounded by razor wire and we could just live there and have a cup of rice every night after working 14 hours a day/6 or 7 days a week. Just think how profitable the companies would be.

If someone doesn’t want to join a union he will be publicly humiliated, shamed and made to march through the streets while being jeered by the crowd. Landowners will suffer the same fate. The dogma of the closed shop union will be what we live by and never questioned. Capitalist intellectuals will be severely punished if identified by student union members. Teachers will be closely monitored. The Children of Mao.

If he doesn't join the union, he'll still enjoy the raises, holidays, training, safety, and workers rights as those that have paid and worked for them, without contributing a thing for them. You'd think the AC would be against that. I think I'll cruise over to the country club and see if they'll let me play a few rounds even though I'm not a member and haven't paid any dues.

Techfan said, "Maybe they can put up barracks surrounded by razor wire and we could just live there and have a cup of rice every night after working 14 hours a day/6 or 7 days a week. Just think how profitable the companies would be."

I never heard of companies doing that, but I've heard of certain governments embracing such methods.

Since the goal appears to be Socialism down the road.
It is time the UAW Rank and File start asking
what they have done FOR the State.

Interesting Note:
Right to Work States are recovering and growing slowly, but still what are leaps and bounds over heavily Union controlled states.

Michigan, a heavily Union controlled state, is losing in every sector except Pawn shops as the joke goes. Detroit the former Car Building City of the world, is a Ghost town.

How many BILLION$ did Obama and the Social Democrats sink into the Auto Industry?

This one quote sums it up.

"The law imposes no limitation on unions’ ability to organize, to engage in collective bargaining, or to strike. It merely forbids them to take money out of the pockets of workers who do not wish to join them.”

tech post...seiu and afscme membership 2.6 million donated 185 million to obumler ...or 71 cents per member only...your math confuses me. or did i read it wrong...which side has more clout.. 3 votes vrs potential 2.6 million votes ..again i am confused...and dang gum how the republicians came up the concept of gerrymandering...a brand new phenonom..also imagine asking identification for proof before voting...dont know story about mike in PA but with all the voter fraud there it probably would have helped romney..and perhaps a fair legal election is what all americans deserve..

Can someone give me ONE reason why a right to work state isn't better. In a right to work state, every worker has the right to join the union if they want to. The only right that is taken away is the UNION'S right to FORCE people to pay them if they want to work. Please explain your opposition to workers having a choice.

"closed their unionized, Kalamazoo, Michigan facility last summer....'
And no doubt has, or will, reopen in a "right-to-work" state. In other words, there are little or no net job gains, simply jobs being shifted around so employers can pay workers less. Sound good? Isn't that just what happens when companies sent jobs to Mexico or China? Do you conservatives also support U.S. jobs going overseas?

Let's face it, "right-to-work" is just another version of outsourcing.

i was only in a union once and it was because i was automatically enrolled when i started working at kroger in high school. in augusta. alexander drive actually. i tried everything to get out but the leader wouldnt return my calls. been kind of anti-union ever since.

although collective bargaining is a tool that can still be wielded by employees in right to work states.

I cannot believe you were serious when you said "they can form a union."
You are too smart for me to believe you were not simply being sarcastic.
Sure workers can form a union in a "right-to-work" state, but it would be
largely ineffective as no one would be forced to pay dues to get any possible benefits the union might achieve. You and others on the right should at least be honest enough to admit that "right-to-work" laws are largely intended to destroy the American union movement. Do you have the guts to say so?